In poor form to 'revisit' a cache?

[TeamTJ]

In my family of 6 not every member gets to go to every cache every time. There are times when my wife wants to hit ones I've already hit and vice versa.

 

Is it poor form to log the second visit (log book or web), even though different family members are visiting?

 

Also, is it considered poor form to go back to a cache if something appears there you may be interested in, like a Travel Bug, for example?

 

Thanks

 

Morgan of

 

TeamTJ

[+dthigpen]

Good Question.... Heh.

 

Doug

[+Jamie Z]

I don't think it's poor form at all. I've returned to several caches that I've already found. Usually it's simply because I'm in the area and I want to make sure the cache is alright, but one time I drove out to a cache to retrieve a travel bug. If you have friends or family who haven't found the cache, that's another good reason to visit a cache for a second time.

 

What would be in bad form is to log it as a second find. If you've already found a cache, revisiting it doesn't give you another find. You should log your visit as a note. I usually log my visit just to give the current condition of the cache... or to document a trade.

 

Jamie

[+Cachier]

In my humble opinion, it would be poor form to log the cache again as a personal find. To accompany another cacher while they look for the cache is another story. If they are a registered cacher they will log the find. If they are not, a memo posting in the log is acceptable. If there really into it, get them to registered.

 

I feel it is acceptable to go back to a cache and trade for an item that may be of interest to you as long as you leave an item that you consider to be equally unique. In any case, a memo posting will always be appreciated by the cache owner.

 

"When you find it, its always in the last place you look."

[+Dekaner]

I personally don't see anything wrong with logging it twice. If nothing more it gives the cache owner an idea of the traffic and condition of their cache.

 

As far as logging it as a 'note' or logging it as a 'find', as far as I'm concerned, if you found it twice, then you 'found' it twice. I've even run into the situation where I only vaguley (sp?) remember finding the cache the first time and have to hunt for it again!

 

- Dekaner of Team KKF2A

[+Harrald]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dekaner of Team KKF2A:

<>

As far as logging it as a 'note' or logging it as a 'find', as far as I'm concerned, if you found it twice, then you 'found' it twice.

<>

 

---

 

It's not a find the second time.

 

But the second time you go back to where you found it the first time. Logging a find twice is like logging a find on a maintance trip to one of your own caches.

 

====================================

As always, the above statements are just MHO.

====================================

[+Dekaner]

It's one thing if you go back a week later and know exactly where it is.

 

But if you visit a year later, especially if it's a different season, then you may in all reality have to search it out again. Maybe your memory is better than mine.

 

The advice I would give to everyone else is to do it however you want. There are no 'rules' in regards to this.

 

If it makes you feel uncomfortable, don't do it. If you have the same opinion as me, go ahead and log again. Worst case scenerio is the cache owner delete's your log.

 

- Dekaner of Team KKF2A

[TeamTJ]

Thanks for the input.

 

I think in our case I'll log it on the web as a find the first time and a note the second time. (Would logging a find twice on the same cache increment your found count?)

 

I'm not looking to boost my found count, just to follow the rules (even if unwritten) and still let my family have fun...

 

Now, If I just had my own GPS unit...

 

Morgan

of

 

TeamTJ

[+Dekaner]

I went and did a maintenance run on one of my caches before winter fully hit and it took me 20 minutes to find it. Apparently a cacher had hit it in a different spot than the original, so I did have to 'find' it again! Alas, I only post logs for maintenance reports.

 

- Dekaner of Team KKF2A

[+Dekaner]

Unfortunately it does add to your counts. I think if it didn't add (and I don't think it should for the record) we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

Of course the misconstrued abominations known as virtual and locationless caches count too. Whoops, did I write that?

 

- Dekaner of Team KKF2A

[TeamTJ]

Virtual Caches I understand, but locationless????

 

TeamTJ

[+briansnat]

Yeah, I think it is poor form, unless the cache owner has moved it to a significantly new spot and says its OK. Otherwise you should just post a note on the page for your subsequent visits.

 

Why don't you just have your wife create her own account so she can log her own finds? A lot of families that don't always cache together do this.

 

As far as visiting it again to pick up, or drop off a travel bug, I don't see a problem with that. Many people do it (and I have too). Again though, you should just note your visit, rather than post a find.

 

"You can't make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs, but by standing a flock of sheep in that position, you can make a crowd of men" -Max Beerbohm

[+Logscaler and Red]

I will stop by and do a health check on caches I have located if the web page says that others are having troubles locating it. I also stop by caches and grab out travel bugs to move them along. But, I will only post the second time around as a note, if I find the cache or not. But, if the cache has been rebuilt under the same name and relocated for whatever reason, then I will post a second find only if the cache owner approves a second find as being okay ahead of time. But if the cache is rebuilt under a new name, even in the same general area, then it will be another cache and logged as a find.

Well that was more like a nickels worth but you get the drift.

[Cape Cod Cacher]

I've had re-visits to caches, a note in the book or a note is nice, but not a find. Finders have brought newbies there; cool, but not to the original finders. A find after a no find is another thing entirely. Virtuals and this 'locationless' thing is another matter I'd rather not get into, since they aren't caches.

[Dale_Lynn]

Depends....

 

I have been to severals caches a second or third time.... Each time was with a person new to caching... That person has the GPS in their hand, was doing the guideance and had to "discover" the cache on their own... I was just "along" I did not give any clues or take anything from cache or sign log book....

 

Dale

 

--------------------------------------------------------

I'm Diagonally Parked, In A Parallel Universe.

--------------------------------------------------------

[+Web-ling]

I think it is improper to log a second "find" on a cache you have already been to unless the cache has been moved a significant distance and the owner posts on the cache page that a second "find" is acceptable. How can you "find" something you already know the location of? If you make a second visit to the cache, I think it is appropriate to post a "note" to that effect.

 

As far as going with a different group of people on subsequent visits, I see no problem with those who have not been to the cache before logging a "find," especially if those that were there before didn't just show them where the cache is. My kids, Miss Pumpkin (age 6) and Curly Tiger (age 4) have hunted some of the caches I placed. Sure, I knew where the caches were, but I wasn't about to tell them! I just handed them the GPSr, and let them work together to find the caches. I logged "finds" for them, and a "note" for myself.

 

Revisiting a cache is perfectly acceptable; Logging a second "find" is inappropriate. Logging a "note" is encouraged.